BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that segments on the News and Morning Report reporting on a murder suicide breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority noted the public interest in the broadcasts and audience’s awareness of the need to exercise discretion during news programming to regulate what their children are exposed to. The Authority also found that the News bulletins covering the item did not reach the threshold necessary to require a warning and that the warning that preceded the Morning Report item was sufficient to enable audiences to make informed choices as to whether they, or children in their care, should listen to the broadcast.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, and Violence.

The broadcasts

[1]  In several broadcasts on 20 February 2020, Radio New Zealand (RNZ) reported on the murder by a Brisbane man of his wife and their three children and his subsequent suicide.

[2]  The 7am, 7.30am and 8am News reports were introduced as follows:

7am: Three children and their mother and father have died in a car fire in Brisbane. It’s alleged Rowan Baxter, a Brisbane father of three who is a former New Zealand Warriors triallist set alight the car he, his former wife and their three young children were in. The ABC’s Max Gay reports.

7.30am: Three children and their mother have died after their car had been set alight in Brisbane. Thirty-one year old Hannah Baxter died in hospital and her three, four and six year old children were found in the burned car. Their father, 42 year old former Warriors triallist Rowan Baxter died from self-inflicted stab wounds at the scene. The ABC reports Ms Baxter jumped from the vehicle and yelled, ‘he’s poured petrol on me.’ (The particular item ended here.)

8am: Three children, their mother and New Zealand father have died after a car fire in Brisbane. It’s alleged Rowan Baxter, a 42 year old man originally from Tauranga, set alight the car he, his estranged wife and their three children were in. Thirty-one year old Hannah Baxter was critically injured and died last night in hospital. The ABC reports Mrs Baxter had jumped from the vehicle and yelled, ‘he’s poured petrol on me.’ The police say Mr Baxter had self-inflicted stab wounds and died on the footpath. The children were aged six, four and three years old. (The particular item ended here.)

[3]  The Morning Report item at 7.14am opened with a warning stating that ‘our next story includes distressing details’. The report began with the following introduction:

An apparent act of family violence in Brisbane yesterday has ended with the deaths of three children under ten, their mother and their father. It’s alleged Rowan Baxter, a Brisbane father of three who was a former New Zealand Warriors player set alight the car he, his former wife and their children were in. Neighbours had said that the woman leapt from the burning car yelling, ‘he’s poured petrol on me’…

[4]  The report continued with a segment from an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) news report which included a description of the scene, and interviews with eye-witnesses describing the incident. One of the eye-witnesses (a neighbour) described seeing, ‘a lady under a hose with skin falling off her body’ and ‘her active wear had been burnt off and her skin was hanging off her body’.

[5]  In considering this complaint, we have listened to a recording of the broadcasts and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

The complaint

[6]  Roger Pink submitted that the broadcasts contained unnecessary graphic details and breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• There is a legitimate public interest in accurately reporting the facts of family violence incidents so as to downplay ill-informed or misguided speculation as to what may have occurred.
• The taking of offence does not equate to harm and, in itself, is insufficient to find that a breach of the standards has occurred.
• The description of the nature of the fatal injuries was kept to a fairly high level and did not delve into graphic detail.
• The Morning Report item included a warning which identified that the events reported were graphic and horrific.

The relevant standards

Good taste and decency

[8]  The good taste and decency standard (Standard 1) states that current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast. The purpose of the standard is to protect audience members from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.¹ In a radio context this is usually in relation to offensive language, sexual material, or sometimes, violence.²

[9]  Where broadcasters take effective steps to inform their audiences of the nature of their programmes, and enable listeners to regulate their own and their children’s listening behaviour, they are less likely to breach this standard.³

Children’s interests

[10]  The children’s interests standard (Standard 3) states that broadcasters should ensure children can be protected from broadcasts which might adversely affect them. Material likely to be considered under this standard includes: violent content or themes, dangerous, antisocial or illegal behaviour, material in which children or animals are humiliated or badly treated and graphic descriptions of people in extreme pain or distress which are outside audience expectations of the station or programme.⁴

[11]  The focus of this standard is on harm that may be unique to children; content that could be considered harmful to children may not be harmful or unexpected when considering the audience in general. Thus, the children’s interests standard may be more rigorous than the general good taste and decency standard.⁵

[12]  There are no prescribed timebands on radio as there are on free-to-air television. On radio, the standard will generally only apply during times that children are likely to be listening to the radio (for example, before and after school, and usually up until 8.30pm on weekdays, and on weekends).⁶

Violence

[13]  The violence standard (Standard 4) states that broadcasters should exercise care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence. This standard will rarely apply to radio (as violent material has more impact visually).⁷

[14]  In news, current affairs and factual programmes, where disturbing or alarming material is often reported to reflect a world in which violence occurs, the material should be justified in the public interest. Judgement and discretion must be used in deciding the degree of graphic detail to be included in news programmes, particularly when children are likely to be listening. An audience advisory should be used when appropriate.⁸

Our findings

[15]  When we consider a complaint that broadcasting standards have been breached, our task is to weigh the value of the programme, in terms of the right to freedom of expression and the public interest in the programme, against the level of actual or potential harm that might be caused by the broadcast. In this case the harm alleged is to audiences generally and to children specifically, through the inclusion of graphic detail in the broadcasts.

[16]  We have weighed the value of the programme against the harm alleged to have been caused by the broadcasts. For the reasons we outline below, we have not found actual or potential harm in relation to the specified standards which would warrant limiting the right to freedom of expression in this case.

Good taste and decency

[17]  News media play a vital role in bringing this information to the public and there are occasions where graphic descriptions in the news report are necessary to demonstrate the nature and gravity of the event.⁹ News items often contain disturbing and violent content that reflects reality and audiences should not be shielded from violent events, which unfortunately do take place.¹⁰

[18]  We find that there was a high level of public interest in the news item given it was a serious case of family violence and the man responsible for the offending was a New Zealander.

[19]  When the Authority considers an alleged breach of Standard 1, it takes into account the context of the broadcast. On this occasion, the relevant contextual factors include:

• News and Morning Report are unclassified news programmes.
• News programmes frequently contain strong or adult material such as crime or violence.
• The 7am, 7.30am and 8am news bulletin were brief reports on the incident that summarised what had happened, but did not include graphic details.
• The item at 7.14am of Morning Report included graphic details of the victim’s ‘skin falling off her body’ and ‘skin hanging off her body’.
• The 7.14am Morning Report item contained a warning and an introduction as stated in paragraph [3] above.
• The broadcasts were during children’s normally accepted listening times.

[20]  All of the three news items were reports of what occurred. We did not find them to contain graphic details or information that is likely to breach the good taste and decency standard.

[21]  The Morning Report item of 20 February 2020 contained graphic details as it provided an eyewitness account which described the suffering of one of the victims. However, this item was preceded by a warning as described in paragraph [3] above. There was also an introduction to the item which summarised the incident giving listeners a further indication of the type of content to expect. While the details in the item may have been upsetting for some listeners, these did not appear until well into the story. The clear warning and introduction were sufficient to inform listeners and allow them an opportunity to decide whether they wished to continue listening to the broadcast. We are of the view that the eye-witness account which was included in the report was important in that it gave listeners an insight into the seriousness and the gravity of this case of family violence.

[22]  We are satisfied that the broadcaster took reasonable steps to inform listeners about the nature of the content and for the above reasons we do not uphold the complaint under the good taste and decency standard.

Children’s interests

[23]  All segments were broadcast during children’s normal listening times. While the broadcasts were news reports with an adult target audience, the Authority acknowledges that children sometimes listen to such programmes in the company of their parents. We recognise that it is not possible or practicable for broadcasters to shield children from all potentially unsuitable content. Our expectation is for broadcasters to provide adequate information to allow audiences to take reasonable steps to protect their children.¹¹

[24]  The contextual factors and the factors discussed under paragraph [19] above, and the factors discussed in paragraphs [20] and [21] under the good taste and decency standard above are also relevant to our consideration of the complaint under this standard. The Authority has previously recognised that audiences are aware of the need to exercise discretion during news programming to regulate what their children are exposed to.¹²

[25]  Taking into account these factors, we find that these items were within audience expectations, and adequate information was provided to allow audiences to take reasonable steps to protect their children.

[26]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Violence

[27]  The broadcasts included references to violence. However, we do not consider these references were detailed or graphic. In assessing a breach of this standard we have considered whether the content in the news item was justified in the public interest, taking into account the context, the level of discretion exercised by RNZ, and the audience advisory used prior to the Morning Report.

[28]  As we have found above, there was a high public interest in the item and we consider the audience advisory was sufficient to allow listeners to make an informed choice about whether to continue listening.

[29]  For the above reasons, we consider the broadcast was justified in the public interest. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the violence standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judge Bill Hastings

Chair
24 August 2020

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Roger Pink’s complaint to RNZ - 20 February 2020

2  RNZ’s response to Mr Pink - 3 April 2020

3  Mr Pink’s referral to the BSA - 11 May 2020

4  RNZ’s final comments - 2 June 2020

5  RNZ clarifying broadcasts - 7 August 2020

¹ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
² As above
³ Guideline 1b
⁴ Guideline 3b
⁵ Commentary: Children’s Interests, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 14
⁶ As above, page 13
⁷ Guideline 4a
⁸ Guideline 4d
⁹ Pask and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-057 at [10]
¹⁰ Lewis and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-069 at [14]
¹¹ Commentary: Children’s Interests, as above, page 13
¹² See for example Pepping and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-040 at [9] and Lough and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2017-080 at [15]